Hmmm.
Eliminating "hostility" from political discussions,
especially in these troubled times, is equivalent to
eliminating the politics from the discussion itself.
If one doesn't feel a sense of righteous
indignation -- especially towards TPTB in the
present world situation -- I'd be surprised.
It's still too murky a standard. "No insults" is a
clear standard. "No hostility" is not. I'm all for
clear standards.
Cheers,
Brian
dredelstein@... wrote:
Dear Marcy,
You wrote:
> I like Michael E's suggestion that posters attend
LPSF meetings! <
I appreciate your kind words. However, I did not
suggest this.
I suggested only those sending insulting emails be
required to attend (two) meetings as a requirement
for continuing posting.
> Brian asks for the "rules" to be posted.
Huuuummmm.... I don't think
we have any "rules" to post. True, this list has
not allowed for
insulting language. <
As I recommended in a previous email, this is the
rule (precisely as you state): "No insulting
language." In internet lingo, "No flaming."
Wikipedia defines flaming as: "... posting messages
that are deliberately hostile and insulting,
usually in the social context of a discussion board
(usually on the Internet). Such messages are called
flames..."
This is a simple, clear standard. Does anyone
object?
Best, Michael
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Request for Input on
the Future of this List
Dear All,
I like Michael E's suggestion that posters attend
LPSF meetings!
However, some might find it difficult to attend, but
still have
wonderful insights to contribute.
Brian asks for the "rules" to be posted.
Huuuummmm.... I don't think
we have any "rules" to post. True, this list has
not allowed for
insulting language. But, what this list has
thrived on in the past is
not simply an absence of insulting language, but
the spontaneous
willingness of posters to see their perspectives as
just that, their
point of view; one view among many equally
excellent ones.
So there. Hope that helps.
Regards,
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Brian Miller
<hightechfella@...>
wrote:
>
> Speaking as someone who is not a member of the SF
Party, I think it
would be easier if those who are being fingered as
"bad" are simply
fingered and offered a chance to explain themselves
-- with those who
are making the accusation explaining what their
perception of the
problem is. Ambiguity is a bad thing in situations
like these.
>
> As a peninsula resident, I second TJ's comments
about how difficult
it is to get to and from LPSF meetings. For those
of us who don't
live in the city, it's an incredible pain in the
backside. For the
most part, my attendance at LPSF meetings is to be
in touch with my
favorite local branch of the LP, not because I'm a
voting member -- if
the suggestion is that non-San-Franciscans should
steer clear of the
LPSF list, I'd actually understand the reasoning!
There are broader
debate forums available elsewhere.
>
> I also have to admit that I don't quite see all
the "bad" things
that people are supposedly doing. Have there been
heated discussions?
Absolutely. But these are troubled times, with
lots of disagreement,
and those discussions are bound to happen, even
internally to the LP.
>
> Frankly, though, if we didn't respect each other
enough to disagree,
we wouldn't be having these debates. I certainly
don't go wandering
in to Republican or Democratic mailing lists to
debate points with
those guys. I'd hate to see that debate disappear,
since it will
simply be picked up elsewhere (and the outcomes of
these debates in
Denver will arguably determine whether there will
even *be* an LP in a
few years' time).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
Meetings on Saturday in a large city with
expensive
> parking and my hatred for public transportation,
plus
> the fact that I work until 7am most Friday
nights...
> into Saturday mornings in Sunnyvale, means I
doubt I
> will make too many more SF meetings. I have been
to 1
> so far, after Ron Paul's visit in July.
>
> On another note, it's as easy for me to hurl
insults
> in public as it is online, to those I think are
insane
> or bad for the party. I have thick skin and a
strong
> conscience myself, and am not worried about
defending
> the positions I hold, as the positions I hold,
and my
> moderate tone on the key issues, are what is
winning
> elections for republicans, democrats and even
> libertarians or libertarian-leaning candidates.
> Although, as you may remember, I do apologize
when I
> go over the deep end which I already did on this
list.
>
> I think everyone just needs to be careful what
they
> post and also, certain people just need to take
a
> chill pill and not be so hypersensitive when
someone
> is bashing into their huge ego and is against
them on
> a position. It's just simple banter and debate...
get
> over yourselves. We aren't as important (yet) as
we
> all wish we were.
>
> -TJ Campbell
>
> --- dredelstein@... wrote:
>
> > Derek,
> >